Download pfd

It happened once that a rabbi mediated a dispute between two congregants- something about goats and property boundaries and what belonged to whom.  The first congregant, Yankel, walked into the rabbi’s study and gave his side of the case.  The rabbi listened intently and then exclaimed, “You’re right!”  The next congregant, Berel, came into the study and argued his side.  Again the rabbi exclaimed, “You’re right!”  The rabbi’s wife, who was watching the whole thing said, “First you told Yankel he was right, then you told Berel he was right.  They can’t both be right!”  To which the rabbi replied, “You’re also right!”  .

I think of this story sometimes when I hear the prayer Aveinu Malkeinu.  Aveinu Malkeinu-  Our Father Our King.  They don’t really go together.  Aveinu-A parent loves unconditionally, sacrifices for a child.  Malkeinu- A sovereign rules with his or her own best interest in mind; a sovereign is owed something by the subjects.  Using Aveinu and Malkeinu together is like telling both Yankel and Barel that they are right.  It doesn’t make sense.  And yet, we use both, Aveinu and Malkeinu in the same sentence, to address God.  Most other prayers let us dwell a little bit in one understanding of God- as creator, covenant maker, one who grants atonement….  But as Rabbi Reuven Hammer notes about Aveinu Malkeinu its “formula is a unique one, combining what are usually seen as two contradictory features, that of a parent who is loving and accepting, and that of a sovereign who is usually seen as stern and demanding.”

So why do we conjure up both notions of God in one breath?  I believe that this prayer, Aveinu Malkeinu, Our Father, Our King, is trying to teach us an essential life skill- that of holding two contradictory ideas in our heads simultaneously without rejecting either.  Scholars have given this not-so-new notion the name “Janusian thinking” after the Roman god Janus who was able to look in four directions simultaneously.

So what’s so essential about this life skill?  I’ve personally been a bit skeptical of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s definition of intelligence – the one that claims that someone who’s intelligent holds two conflicting ideas in her head.  I’m skeptical because of the stories like Berel and Yankel’s – where Janusian thinking leads only to paralysis and indecision. 

But Janusian thinking doesn’t just stop at believing two different stories at the same time.  Janusian thinking is the capacity to utilize them as well.  It’s weighing the pros and cons of each respective side, understanding their relationship, their interplay, and then using them to create something new without negating either.

I think that the rabbi in our story missed that last creative step.  He didn’t create a new solution while respecting both Berel and Yankel’s positions- no new ways to think abut goats and grass. In spite of the rabbi’s shortcomings, Janusian thinking does have tremendous potential in conflict resolution if we’re able to work in this last step.  It’s just not an easy skill to master as I’ve been learning in recent years.

When living in Israel for my first year of rabbinic school, I helped facilitate a number of trips to meet with Palestinians in the West Bank through a program called Encounters. As part of this program, we explored the effects of the security barrier for both Israelis and Palestinians. Now, I take a nuanced stance when it comes to the security barrier. I believe that its presence is essential in preventing suicide attacks and saving lives. I also believe that its current path is not for the sake of security alone. I was deeply upset when I saw the effects of the security barrier- cutting Palestinian families off from their olive fields and their livelihoods. There was no justifiable security reason that the wall took its path in middle of Bethlehem to let Israeli tourists visit Rachel's tomb and other religious sites. And yet, troubling as that was, Palestinians proposed that the only just thing to do was to tear down the wall entirely- tear down the wall that had practically eliminated suicide attacks in Jerusalem. I didn't feel like the Palestinians with whom we spoke heard us at all- how could we possibly return to weekly bus bombings and restaurant explosions throughout Israel. There seemed to be an impassible abyss on many issues with both sides unable to acknowledge the real truths of the other. Those trips left a lasting impression of how difficult it was for both Jews and Palestinians to really hear one another. I personally felt schizophrenic, not knowing which byproduct of the same reality to internalize more, whether to feel more guilty or defensive.

Janusian thinking can be really hard, especially when you're emotionally invested in one side of the issue. But I assure you that while the alternatives to Janusian thinking may be easier on the psyche, they have little hope of moving us forward.

One alternative is championing your side and completely rejecting the other.  “I’ve considered your point of view, and I consider it wrong.”  With the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, this produces chain emails about how many more Jewish Nobel prize winners there are than Arab among many such lists of the other’s sins and our own virtues.  These emails serve well to affirm beliefs, but not to address conflict.

Another alternative to Janusian thinking that's easy on the psyche but bad for conflict resolution is to relinquish your own narrative and take on that of the other- to distance yourself from the wrongdoings of your own group. "I've considered your point of you, and you're right. My people are wrong." Germany has a shockingly high number of converts to Judaism- often people who are trying to escape their collective guilt for the Holocaust by taking on the identity of those who were persecuted. One can't be held responsible if one becomes the victim instead of the oppressor. Some Jews have taken on this approach with the Israel/Palestine conflict- pushing the Jewish narrative aside to fully embrace Palestinians and their suffering. This serves to alleviate a sense of guilt, but it does too little to address the conflict.

Janusian thinking demands that we start from our own story, but not be stuck in it. "I've considered your point of view and I understand where you're coming from. So how can my point of view make room for you without sacrificing what's essential to me?"

It seems that right now, there's a stalemate in the Israeli/Palestianian conflict that makes this discussion seem more theoretical than anything. Over 80% of Israelis are in favor of a two state solution, but over 97% do not know what the next step forward ought to be for the peace process. It's a situation that's backed everyone into their corners with their boxing gloves on. No Janusian thinking happening now.

But this is a missed opportunity. No, peace may not be feasible to expect tomorrow or within the next 6 months, or even the next few years. But Rabbi Doniel Hartman, an Israeli rabbi, suggests to us that this stalemate not be used as an excuse to promote the status quo. The Palestinians may not be ready for peace today as a coherent political entity. But what happens if eight months, two years, ten years down the line, they come knocking at the door really and truly ready. Will we be ready for that knock?

It depends. If we use the time now only to espouse our virtues louder, then no. we will not be ready for that knock. If, however, we use this time to consider where in our own story there's room for the other, we may just put enough new facts on the ground - thousands of empty new housing units in Israel proper ready for settlers to move, financial incentives for the Israeli lower class to live in Israel proper rather than the territories, a security barrier that encompasses Israeli cities rather than cutting through Palestinian fields - these things will not bring peace. They will, however, make peace tangible when the time comes. When we are able to use Janusian thinking at its best, when we consider the Palestinian perspective along with our own, we discover that there is room for the other in our own story.

Now it's perfectly conceivable that the Israel/Palestine conflict may not feel central or even relevant in your life. That's okay. The message is the same whether we're talking about international relations or interpersonal relations. The life skill of Janusian thinking is still essential. It's a skill that we ought to exercise not only in conceiving of peace in the Middle East, but also peace in our own homes (shalom bayit). When we argue with our loved ones, are we seeking to understand where they're coming from? Are we listening with more than the intent to refute them and win?

Seeking to understand before being understood comes with the complexity of Janusian thinking, when we're able to acknowledge two competing narratives simultaneously. It's something that our tradition has been training us over millennia to do- to simultaneously think Aveinu- our father, and Malkeinu- our king. to hold onto these to competing notions, not letting go of either.

May Aveinu Malkeinu-our parent and our sovereign-guide us down this difficult but rewarding path of Janusian thought.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT: This talk emphasizes the difference between two key perceptions of God: the God who is present and involved in our lives, and the God who sets rules that we must follow while remaining at a distance. The relevance to American values is the choice that we continually must make between believing that our viewpoint is the only right one, and opening ourselves up to the possibility that there may be some merit to the viewpoints of others. This second perspective creates the possibility of constructive dialogue between individuals and nations toward the implementation of a mutual vision for the world that we want to live in.